3 ms·

>>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until thi

>>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Would disagree with your statement https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

syshum 6y ago
I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way. Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)
- stillbourne 6y ago
  Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. > Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law) You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. The facts are that what I said is indisputably correct. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. I get that you trying to say that even if there is not a grant by law that companies should enforce free expression. I am saying that no where is that guaranteed or granted. Additionally you stated: >For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone If you read the terms and services or the community guidelines you can clearly see how absurd that argument is. To argue that a platform cannot moderate its own content is to say that the owner of that platform does not have the right to its own freedom of speech. The platform as an entity run by its owners also have the right to free expression and it is their right to moderate content that is contrary to the messages then intend to promote. Furthermore, I believe it makes sense to state that the freedom of the platform to curate its message through moderation supersedes the rights of those users of the platform to use it to make statements.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Yes rating limiting here is annoying and counter productive. I have been rate limited many times. However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? >You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. Ahh I see you misunderstood what I was disagreeing about. That was not to imply you were legally incorrect. No the disagreement was conflating the clear free expression issue and censorship issue with the US 1st Amendment YT actions are censorship even if they are allowed by law. 1st amendment protect people in the US from censorship by government Censorship supporters like yourself often point to the 1st amendment as the only protection for free expression. The US Constitution is solely about creating a government and then limiting that government, it holds no power or authority outside of the that context nor should it This is why I disagree that the 1st amendment should even be mentioned in the context of private censorship. It is a red herring and a straw-man People that advocate for upholding the ideals of free expression in private contexts normally do not use 1st amendment law as the foundation. Free Expression ideals predate this document and were added because the population at large demanded their right to speak This is what I want to see a return of, the public demanding corporations uphold free expression as a virtue Instead we see cancel culture mobs demanding platforms create a safe space where their opinions, statements, and belief are beyond criticism (provided you are in a member of a protected group) because any criticism must be on its face an ism or phobic as Jonathan Haidt coined this is safetyism – the idea that people are weak and should be protected, rather than exposed, to challenges. I am firm believer in confronting "bad speech" with "good speech" not simply exiling bad speech off the public square, or in this case large mainstream platforms.
    - stillbourne 6y ago
      > However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? No, I do not advocate censorship, I advocate that the freedom of expression of the owner of a venue supersedes the expression of those who use that venue and that it is the right of the owner to moderate the content of his venue so as to not appear to advocate the messages of those users of that venue to express messages that the owner may consider detrimental to the operation of his venue. Here is an analogy, let's say I operate a concert hall. In addition to hosting musicians and the occasional art exhibit I will occasionally host political rallies for those willing to pay the fees. As a venue operator I don't have a selection bias favoring any party as long as the guests will pay the charges to use my venue. All they need to do is sign my contract that was written up by the lawyer to protect my assets. One day a request is made to rent out my venue. Under the false pretense of a political rally it turns out that its actually a white supremacist speaker spreading a message I do not endorse. As an operator of that venue do I not have a right that supersedes the rights of the those who intend to spread a message of hate to cancel the contract they signed that says I can terminate the relationship at will? I don't want to be seen as advocating that message. Do I not have the right to my own freedom of expression as the operator of my own property? Does the owner not have the right to dissent by termination? This is not censorship it is content moderation. There is a difference. The problem here is not the owner exercising his free speech as the operator of a venue to decline the use of his platform to spread hate speech. The problem is those who insist that universal toleration should be enforced regardless of the message or the wishes of the owner of any given platform. I have the legal right to terminate service of anyone who would use my venue to spread a message contrary to my intended audience or that violates my personal creed. That too is freedom of speech. That is why I bring up Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) as it shows that as an owner of a venue I am entitled to my freedom of expression and that my rights as the operator are not superseded by the users of my venue. If I don't want to advocate a message it is my right to dissent by not providing a platform to a message I don't agree with. Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy. -Herbert Marcuse "For whom heteronomy has become autonomy." Isn't that the what many of these people are getting deplatformed for? What is closer to heteronomy than white supremacy?

syshum 6y ago

I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way. Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)

stillbourne 6y ago
Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. > Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law) You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. The facts are that what I said is indisputably correct. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. I get that you trying to say that even if there is not a grant by law that companies should enforce free expression. I am saying that no where is that guaranteed or granted. Additionally you stated: >For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone If you read the terms and services or the community guidelines you can clearly see how absurd that argument is. To argue that a platform cannot moderate its own content is to say that the owner of that platform does not have the right to its own freedom of speech. The platform as an entity run by its owners also have the right to free expression and it is their right to moderate content that is contrary to the messages then intend to promote. Furthermore, I believe it makes sense to state that the freedom of the platform to curate its message through moderation supersedes the rights of those users of the platform to use it to make statements.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Yes rating limiting here is annoying and counter productive. I have been rate limited many times. However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? >You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. Ahh I see you misunderstood what I was disagreeing about. That was not to imply you were legally incorrect. No the disagreement was conflating the clear free expression issue and censorship issue with the US 1st Amendment YT actions are censorship even if they are allowed by law. 1st amendment protect people in the US from censorship by government Censorship supporters like yourself often point to the 1st amendment as the only protection for free expression. The US Constitution is solely about creating a government and then limiting that government, it holds no power or authority outside of the that context nor should it This is why I disagree that the 1st amendment should even be mentioned in the context of private censorship. It is a red herring and a straw-man People that advocate for upholding the ideals of free expression in private contexts normally do not use 1st amendment law as the foundation. Free Expression ideals predate this document and were added because the population at large demanded their right to speak This is what I want to see a return of, the public demanding corporations uphold free expression as a virtue Instead we see cancel culture mobs demanding platforms create a safe space where their opinions, statements, and belief are beyond criticism (provided you are in a member of a protected group) because any criticism must be on its face an ism or phobic as Jonathan Haidt coined this is safetyism – the idea that people are weak and should be protected, rather than exposed, to challenges. I am firm believer in confronting "bad speech" with "good speech" not simply exiling bad speech off the public square, or in this case large mainstream platforms.
  - stillbourne 6y ago
    > However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? No, I do not advocate censorship, I advocate that the freedom of expression of the owner of a venue supersedes the expression of those who use that venue and that it is the right of the owner to moderate the content of his venue so as to not appear to advocate the messages of those users of that venue to express messages that the owner may consider detrimental to the operation of his venue. Here is an analogy, let's say I operate a concert hall. In addition to hosting musicians and the occasional art exhibit I will occasionally host political rallies for those willing to pay the fees. As a venue operator I don't have a selection bias favoring any party as long as the guests will pay the charges to use my venue. All they need to do is sign my contract that was written up by the lawyer to protect my assets. One day a request is made to rent out my venue. Under the false pretense of a political rally it turns out that its actually a white supremacist speaker spreading a message I do not endorse. As an operator of that venue do I not have a right that supersedes the rights of the those who intend to spread a message of hate to cancel the contract they signed that says I can terminate the relationship at will? I don't want to be seen as advocating that message. Do I not have the right to my own freedom of expression as the operator of my own property? Does the owner not have the right to dissent by termination? This is not censorship it is content moderation. There is a difference. The problem here is not the owner exercising his free speech as the operator of a venue to decline the use of his platform to spread hate speech. The problem is those who insist that universal toleration should be enforced regardless of the message or the wishes of the owner of any given platform. I have the legal right to terminate service of anyone who would use my venue to spread a message contrary to my intended audience or that violates my personal creed. That too is freedom of speech. That is why I bring up Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) as it shows that as an owner of a venue I am entitled to my freedom of expression and that my rights as the operator are not superseded by the users of my venue. If I don't want to advocate a message it is my right to dissent by not providing a platform to a message I don't agree with. Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy. -Herbert Marcuse "For whom heteronomy has become autonomy." Isn't that the what many of these people are getting deplatformed for? What is closer to heteronomy than white supremacy?